108. Candidates leave him in a quandary

The Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama race for the Democratic nomination is proving to be an interesting one. Although I have not yet made a decision, and, in general, I am frustrated with the entire process, I think both candidates offer remarkable backgrounds, perspective and appeal.

I have a lot of respect for Hillary, and the quest to be the first female president cannot be easy. She is very intelligent, graduating from Yale Law School and subsequently spent some time leaching law. In addition to a solid academic background, she served twelve years as Arkansas' first lady, before serving eight years in the same role in the White House. She then followed that with her time as a New York senator- the first woman elected to a statewide position in New York. The one thing she is not lacking is political experience.

To run as a female candidate brings forth a number of factors that other male candidates need not consider. Not only does she have to assimilate into the old, white, wealthy male world of American politics, she has to repudiate the common female stereotypes. Thus, her campaign leads a constant battle over her appearance...making her appear to be tough enough to be president, but not too tough as to appear abrasive. And when her appearance grows too tough, she cries, when she seems too soft, she speaks authoritatively.

There are two things that bother me about Hillary. The first is that her last name is Clinton, and if elected, our country will have had successive terms of Bush, Clinton, Bush and Clinton. Already into two decades of American rule, I just do not think it is good for the country to have a limited number of families serving as commander in chief. Granted this is not Hillary's fault, but, nonetheless, it limits the political power of this country. As evident in the second Bush presidency, the relationships that served the first Bush withstand, and there is a lack of political influence from outsiders.

My second criticism is her political-ness. She is well engaged in the political nature of this country. As a friend of mine noted, she is tied to political polls, venturing only as far as is necessary to remain popular. She was burned as first lady, and one might conclude that she learned her lesson. Her attempt to introduce national healthcare, was harshly received, and she was introduced to what happens when you threaten the wealth of the wealthy (insurance companies, etc.). Subsequently, she seems overly cautious in appeasing those who make the largest campaign contributions. Furthermore, it is sometimes difficult to get a straight answer from her. A question is often answered with a diatribe about an only somewhat related topic.

Barack Obama, likewise, is very intelligent, graduating from Columbia University and then Harvard Law School. He also taught law, teaching at the University of Chicago Law School. He is young, well spoken, appealingly sincere, and, of course, black. In his case, the lack of experience is actually refreshing. His membership in the old, white, wealthy male political area is equally compromised, and the hope is that he might not know better in attempting to follow through with political promises.

As the first black candidate that actually has a chance to secure the presidency, he faces the same challenges over race that Hillary experiences over gender. Author Shelby Steele writes poetically on this issue in his book, "A Bound Man." One reviewer notes:

"Steele writes of how Obama is caught between the two classic postures that blacks have always used to make their way in the white American mainstream: bargaining and challenging. Bargainers strike a "bargain" with white America in which they say, I will not rub America's ugly history of racism in your face if you will not hold my race against me. Challengers do the opposite of bargainers. They charge whites with inherent racism and then demand that they prove themselves innocent by supporting black-friendly policies like affirmative action and diversity.

Steele maintains that Senator Obama is too constrained by these elaborate politics to find his own true political voice. Obama has the temperament, intelligence, and background -- an interracial family, a sterling education -- to guide America beyond the exhausted racial politics that now prevail. And yet he is a Promethean figure, a bound man."

Furthermore, in addition to Steele's comments, Obama must strike a difficult balance, where to white America, he is not simply a "black candidate" and to black America, he is not regarded as a "sellout" or "Uncle Tom." Racism is still an issue, exemplified about once a week in the chain emails I receive which are quick to note black stereotypes and to question his American allegiance- mostly because his middle name is Hussein.

My only concern with Obama is his lack of experience. While the lack of it might be refreshing, there is, unfortunately, a real element to political experience, influence and compromise. It does not provide any benefit to anyone if political change cannot be negotiated politically throughout Congress and with foreign leadership. It might take him some time in developing relationships, working with Republicans and balancing the influence of political money with political favors.

The quest for the Democratic is a dynamic one, in several respects. Despite the in-fighting, and the nature of politics in general, I am enjoying the diversity of candidates seeking America's highest position. The outcome, which should be settled in the near future, will undoubtedly precede an equally interesting presidential race. The Republican candidate, whoever it will be, will be much more in line with our typical presidential candidate- old, white, wealthy and male.

107. Determine champion with playoff

College football continues to be a mess. It has committed to, in my opinion, the biggest travesty in sports in using the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) to determine its national champion. It is simply a ridiculous system, and it is the only major sport that does not determine its champion on the field. Through a hodgepodge of factors, college football uses sportswriter opinion and computers to decide which two teams will play for the national championship. Just how ridiculous is it?

Consider that the number one ranked team in the country (Missouri) was an underdog to win its own conference on a neutral field (against Oklahoma). It should be noted here that if you ever really want to know who the (consensus) best team is, you just have to call Vegas and review the gambling lines. These people have the most to lose, and rarely does prejudice play a factor. (I would imagine that LSU will be a considerable favorite against top-ranked Ohio State.)

The Missouri and Oklahoma game was of considerable interest to us in Ohio because if Missouri (or West Virginia) lost, as both did, Ohio State would move up in the rankings and play again for the National Championship. As excited as I am for the opportunity to play for the National Championship, there is something very unfulfilling about sitting around for a few weeks and hoping that all the teams above them in the rankings lose. It also seems quite unfair that other conferences must play a conference title game, while Big Ten teams fill in the extra game with a team from the Mid-American Conference.

There is no other sport that I know where a team can finish the season undefeated, and not have a chance to win its respective championship. Consider Hawaii, which finished the season as the only undefeated team. Despite their efforts, they were not seriously considered for the National Championship. While it is probably true that they are not the best team in the country; what kind of competitive system tells a team that no matter what you accomplish- you will not have the opportunity to be national champions.

As had been noted the last few years, and especially in years when Ohio State (or any Big Ten team) is playing for the national championship, there is a ridiculous amount of time (about 40 days) between their last game and the championship game. That's over five weeks, which is nearly half a season. This fact is especially detrimental to sports, like football, where timing is so important. In addition, any momentum is sacrificed, as essentially teams rebuild for a one game season.

Surprisingly, many coaches, including Jim Tressel, do not favor a playoff system. There are several reasons for this, including the additional pressure to perform at a national level. In addition, it is a lot more work, as successful teams will have a few more games to prepare for. And, frankly, I think many of the coaches are afraid of losing such high-profile games. These coaches have grown accustom to recruiting premier athletes and simply outclassing five to six opponents per season. As much as Tressel will tell you otherwise, in most years, Ohio State starts the season with six to seven wins. Losing "big games," as John Cooper found out, will cost you your job.

Tressel is a very smart man, and without a Big Ten Championship game, and in the relatively weak Big Ten, his formula for success generally revolves around two to three big games- usually one major out of conference team, one difficult road Big Ten game and, of course, Michigan. He is playing the system, and who can really blame him? It would, however, be nice to hear him speak out in favor of a college football playoff.

In fact, I am disappointed that more coaches would not favor the opportunity to compete against the other top teams, whether it is eight or sixteen teams, to decide the championship on the field. Some do, and I respect their integrity. After all, it is about competition and striving to become the best. Every other sport fairly declares a champion, why should college football be any different?

The most preposterous argument against a college football system is that it would not work. High School football teams as well as other college divisions all play a sixteen team playoff. Rarely would one argue that the best team, or at least most deserving team, did not win the playoff. The state or national champions play a maximum of four additional games, against increasing levels of competition. It is this system which exemplified Jim Tressels's coaching ability in winning Division I-AA national championships at Youngstown State- and which makes his reluctance more surprising. To succeed at the Division I level, all that would be necessary would be for the top teams to scale back on the early season "cupcakes."

Another argument is from the perspective of tradition. I find this argument to be archaic, as times have clearly changed. The bowls could simply rotate different rounds of the playoff, with each game actually being much more meaningful that many of the bowl games that are played now. Could anyone imagine how exciting an Ohio State/Michigan playoff game would be? Each one of the bowl games would have a better matchup, instead of some the unattended, unimportant games that currently waste our time over the holiday season.

Finally, there is the issue of money. Of course, this argument inevitably drives most decisions. However, I cannot imagine a playoff system that did not make an enormous amount of money. For example, the college basketball tournament has grown into one of the premier sporting event. At the moment of its inception, a college football playoff would be the biggest event in sports. There must be somebody, somewhere, with a lot of influence, and a lot to lose, in implementing such a system. I do not know any other reason. It is complete and utter nonsense.

Do not get me wrong, I am very excited that Ohio State is playing in the National Championship. And I have a lot of respect for Coach Jim Tressel. And I love beating Michigan. But, as this year as proven, it is time to move the national championship from the business office to the football field.

106. Traditions should mean something

When I was a child, I anxiously greeted each holiday season by looking forward to my much loved television specials. Probably even unbeknownst to my Mom, I would wait for the television guide so that I could note the schedule of my favorites, such as "Frosty the Snowman" and "Rudolf the Red-Nose Reindeer." I had seen each of these shows several times, but in the spirit of the holiday tradition, I could not be more excited to see them again.

Families around the holidays usually have several traditions, whether it is where they visit (Grandma's house), when they visit (Christmas Eve or Christmas Day) what they eat (turkey, pie), or what they do (play games, sing songs by the piano or engage in a fun game of co-ed football). Family traditions usually originate subtly through a couple of innocent repetitive occurrences, after which they become something that is looked forward to.

I think time with the family is one of the best ways to spend the holidays, where you have a chance to be yourself with the people that know you the best. You can fool a lot of people at work, or in other social circles, but rarely can you fool your family. In seeing you at your best and your worst, your family knows the "real" you. Their love is most sincere, and perhaps, most importantly, your family will usually forgive you for your mistakes when others will not. They have seen you all of their lives, and ultimately, you are one of them.

Your family will also know when you do not want to be there; when you are simply going through the motions- only because it is holiday tradition. Holiday traditions, regardless of what they are, should be fun- not a chore. They should not remain a tradition just because they are tradition. In other words, just because you have done something the same way every year does not mean that it needs to be done the same way every year.

For example, for several years my family has played one of the gift exchange games. However, a couple of years ago, there grew an uncomfortable feeling when, at the traditional moment, everyone just stopped and waited for the game. Furthermore, the game became repetitive...the same small gifts were being purchased; people were saying the same thing at the same time in the game. To keep the tradition alive, we attempted to "bar" some of the more popular gifts that were being purchased each year- to inspire some creativity. Finally last year and again this year, we have significantly altered the game and completely rewritten the rules.

Traditions are largely a "script" of how the thing is to be played out. Often families, after years of doing the same thing every year, simply follow the script. Just following the script, can not only become boring, it can become void of emotion. Ironically, not following the script can lead to considerable unrest, when one family member dares his or her own rewrite.

So go holiday traditions, an ideology that I consider and reconsider each year (perhaps that is now my tradition). I think traditions are wonderful to the extent that they still provide the excitement and joy of what each activity originally meant when it became a tradition. However, too many traditions can lead to problems when families expand and the now "traditional responsibilities" become overwhelming in the attempt to satisfy all of them. Tradition is also rich in repetitiveness- that is, doing the same thing over and over. And sometimes, the activities become about living the traditions, not about enjoying the moment.

In worst case scenarios, the holidays become a self-imposed guilt trip, in which some families scurry around the state attempting to make each traditional family gathering and do those things they are supposed to do- as not to offend anyone and become the subject of a year of not-so-friendly gossip and criticism. This seems to be a burden, and one that destroys the meaning of the holidays.

Perhaps families might find new traditions exciting and fresh. For example, if the meaning of the holidays is spending time with family, does it really matter that it happens on December 24 or December 25? Is there room for new traditions, and similarly, do some traditions need to be retired? And, how about incorporating some surprises or improvisation into your "holiday plans"? We only have so many years to our lives, and I have no interest in living the same year over and over. There is too much in this world to be enjoyed and experienced, and the only traditions I think worth keeping are the ones you truly look forward to.

105. Trying times call for serious people

I recently had knee surgery. Like most people, I took great interest in both the physician that recommended it and the surgeon that performed the surgery. I wanted to be sure that they had a medical degree and a fair amount of experience. It turns out that my surgeon spends considerable time working with the Cleveland Indians and other professional teams. My comfort was the result of the realization that he often works on very "valuable" knees, at least compared to mine.

But to continue, I'll soon need physical therapy, in which case I will refer myself to a licensed physical therapist. Beyond my knee though, if I need a dentist, I want a dentist that has graduated from dental school. If a family member needs a nursing facility, I will select one that has degreed, licensed and experienced nurses, social workers and administrators. My interest in personal welfare is not limited to doctors. When I have my taxes filed, I want someone certified in preparing taxes. When my car breaks, I want a certified mechanic. The trend is obvious, when it comes to the things that matter; I want people who are educated, licensed and experienced in their selected professions.

We just experienced another election season, and I am always surprised at some of the people that are elected and those that are not elected. Unfortunately, there is no educational or licensure requirement for becoming a politician. Nor is there a requisite of experience. As most of us know, becoming a politician is about connections, money and political strategy (often, "how low will you go"). It is a con-man's game, convincing people that you, as a politician, will objectively make decisions- independent of the influence of those people whose money put you in power.

We have seen people barely eighteen years old elected- in addition to those uneducated and inexperienced beyond a high school diploma and coaching little league baseball. We have also seen former criminals elected. To be fair, leaders, even great leaders, come in all dimensions, including the young, uneducated and inexperienced, but I wonder on what criteria they are then being elected.

There are no requirements for our political leaders, those people who are responsible for much of our lives. They are not required to have a degree in political science, business or law- let alone a high school diploma. There is no licensure program that teaches or provides experience in economic systems, labor laws, philosophy, negotiation, organizational management, ethics, public administration, crime and punishment, science and the environment, healthcare systems, administrative law, public accounting or decision modeling. Rarely is there a demonstrated criterion of leadership or experience.

Personally, I prefer a candidate with a diversity of experience and interest. I am not attracted to anyone that has done the same thing for forty years, without significant consequence. I want people who have experienced what I have experienced, and have an interest in the things I have an interest in. I want people that have endured trying circumstances, such as a job loss or living without medical insurance. I want someone that has donated his or her time to community service; someone who has been on the frontline of non-profit organizations and philanthropy. I want someone who understands both sides of an issue; someone who can reconcile business with the environment, and unions with management. Finally, I want someone old enough to have experience how difficult life can be, regardless of how talented a younger individual might be.

This year, one mayor-elect actually listed coaching CYO Volleyball on his Circum Vitae. How desperate must one be that coaching volleyball is perceived as a demonstrated value in leadership, community activity or volunteer work? This particular candidate promotes "safety," by driving drug dealers out of town and reclaiming our neighborhoods from criminals. This exhibition in brilliance might warrant a few follow-up questions, such as...how are you going to do it? Is it feasible? By what standard will you measure success- the number of arrests or a decrease in crime rates? How is crime related to education and drop-out rates figures? What about the economic situation and unemployment, is that contributing to the high crime rates? Is it a socio-economic, cultural, racial or criminal justice issue? If the city needs more police officers on duty, how will you pay for it? Will you raise taxes on an already-depressed region? Or will you cut other services that citizen taxes currently pay for? How will you decide which services are cut and which are not? What will you do if city council does not cooperate?

Politics is not easy, and it is not for everyone. Many of the issues are endlessly intertwined and it takes a multitude of talent, education and experience to work through them. No longer should political races be popularity contests. Or about who can raise the most money. Politicians influence our lives and society no less than people in other professions, of which we require degrees, licenses and proven experience. It is time to take a comprehensive interest in those which we elect to represent us. And, it is time to expect more from our leaders- for if they are not performing to our expectations, we only have ourselves to blame. We review their résumés and conduct their interviews. And, ultimately, we decide whom to hire.